Atcherley v. Hanna

Full title: WILBUR ATCHERLEY, Plaintiff, v. J. HANNA, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jun 11, 2013

2:13-cv-0576 AC P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 11, 2013)

Opinion

WILBUR ATCHERLEY, Plaintiff, v. J. HANNA, et al., Defendants. No. 2:13-cv-0576 AC P. United States District Court, E.D. California. June 11, 2013.

          ORDER

          ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff has also moved for appointment of expert witnesses. ECF No. 12.

         The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court , 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer , 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright , 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances because, to date, defendants have not yet appeared in the action. Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel, and the appointment of an expert witness, which seek relief in part based upon the complexity of the issues to be raised at trial or in a summary judgment motion, are accordingly premature. The Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel and for appointment of an expert witness will therefore be denied without prejudice to renewal at a later stage of the proceeding.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 11) and for appointment of an expert witness (ECF No. 12) are denied without prejudice to renewal at a later stage in the proceedings.